Research on Laser Cutting Process Optimization of 4 mm Thick TC4‐M Titanium Alloy

Ya Zhang; Wentao Xu; Chunyu Wang; Xianfeng Zhang; Hua Qing; Dunming Tan; Shuai Wang

doi:10.3788/CJL241291

Chinese Journal of Lasers, Volume. 52, Issue 8, 0802102(2025)

Research on Laser Cutting Process Optimization of 4 mm Thick TC4‐M Titanium Alloy

Ya Zhang¹, Wentao Xu¹, Chunyu Wang², Xianfeng Zhang^2、*, Hua Qing², Dunming Tan², and Shuai Wang³

Author Affiliations

¹School of Mechanics and Safety Engineering, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450001, Henan , China

²Aviation Maintenance NCO Academy, Air Force Engineering University, Xinyang 464001, Henan , China

³School of Materials Science and Engineering, Guilin University of Electronic Technology, Guilin 541004, Guangxi , China

show less

Abstract Get PDF(in Chinese)

Figures & Tables(34)

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of test layout

Download full size

Fig. 2. Laser cutting scheme

Download full size

Fig. 3. Test diagrams of metallographic sample. (a) Schematic diagram of metallographic sample preparation; (b) measurement diagram of abnormal tissue area; (c) schematic of microhardness test

Download full size

Fig. 4. Diagram of cutting specimens

Download full size

Fig. 5. Influence of process parameters on kerf width. (a) Laser power P; (b) defocusing amount f; (c) cutting speed v; (d) gas pressure p

Download full size

Fig. 6. Cutting speed versus heat input

Download full size

Fig. 7. Results of energy spectrum analysis. (a) Test position; (b) test result

Download full size

Fig. 8. Macroscopic morphologies of cut sections

Download full size

Fig. 9. Partitioning of cut surface morphology

Download full size

Fig. 10. Influences of process parameters on slag hanging height and smooth zone width. (a) Laser power; (b) defocusing amount;

Download full size

Fig. 11. Diagram of smooth area change mechanism

Download full size

Fig. 12. Metallographic structure and microhardness distribution of cutting seams in TC4 titanium alloy sheet. (a) Microstructure; (b) microhardness

Download full size

Fig. 13. Electron microscopic structures of cutting seams in TC4 titanium alloy sheet. (a) Remelt zone; (b) HAZ; (c) matrix

Download full size

Fig. 14. Influences of process parameters on width of abnormal tissue zone. (a) Laser power; (b) defocusing amount ; (c) cutting speed; (d) gas pressure

Download full size

Fig. 15. Macro-morphologies of cut specimens

Download full size

Fig. 16. Factor level graphs. (a) Kerf width; (b) width of abnormal tissue zone; (c) slag hanging height

Download full size

Fig. 17. Comparison of actual and predicted values. (a) Kerf width; (b) abnormal tissue zone width; (c) slag hanging height

Download full size

Fig. 18. Effects of interactions on kerf width. (a) Laser power and defocusing amount ; (b) laser power and gas pressure; (c) cutting speed and defocusing amount

Download full size

Fig. 19. Effects of interactions on width of abnormal tissue zone. (a) Laser power and defocusing amount; (b) laser power and cutting speed; (c) laser power and gas pressure

Download full size

Fig. 20. Effects of interactions on slag hanging height. (a) Laser power and defocusing amount; (b) laser power and cutting speed; (c) laser power and gas pressure

Download full size

Table 1. Chemical compositions of Ti-6Al-4V titanium alloy (mass fraction, %)
View table
Table 1. Chemical compositions of Ti-6Al-4V titanium alloy (mass fraction, %)
Al V Fe O C Ti
5.500‒6.800 3.500‒4.500 ≤0.120 ≤0.099 ≤0.047 Bal.

Table 2. Single factor test parameters

View table

Table 2. Single factor test parameters

Experimental group	Laser power P /W	Defocusing amount f /mm	Cutting speed v /（m/s）	Gas pressure p /MPa
d-1	2000	-7	0.10	1.7
d-2	2500	-7	0.10	1.7
d-3	3000	-7	0.10	1.7
d-4	3500	-7	0.10	1.7
d-5	3800	-7	0.10	1.7
d-6	3000	-7	0.10	1.3
d-7	3000	-7	0.10	1.5
d-8	3000	-7	0.10	1.7
d-9	3000	-7	0.10	1.8
d-10	3000	-7	0.10	1.9
d-11	3000	-7	0.03	1.7
d-12	3000	-7	0.05	1.7
d-13	3000	-7	0.07	1.7
d-14	3000	-7	0.10	1.7
d-15	3000	-7	0.12	1.7
d-16	3000	-8	0.10	1.7
d-17	3000	-7	0.10	1.7
d-18	3000	-6	0.10	1.7
d-19	3000	-5	0.10	1.7
d-20	3000	-4	0.10	1.7

Table 3. Laser cutting factor levels
View table
Table 3. Laser cutting factor levels
Level Laser power P /W Defocusing amount f /mm Cutting speed v /（m/s） Gas pressure p /MPa
1 2000 -7 0.03 1.9
2 2500 -6 0.05 1.7
3 3000 -4 0.07 1.5
4 3500 -2 0.10 1.3
5 3800 0 0.12 1.1

Table 4. L₂₅(5⁴) orthogonal experimental design

View table

Table 4. L₂₅(5⁴) orthogonal experimental design

Experimental group	Laser power P /W	Defocusing amount f /mm	Cutting speed v /（m/s）	Gas pressure p /MPa
Z-1	2000	-7	0.03	1.9
Z-2	2000	-6	0.07	1.3
Z-3	2000	-4	0.12	1.7
Z-4	2000	-2	0.05	1.1
Z-5	2000	0	0.10	1.5
Z-6	2500	-7	0.12	1.3
Z-7	2500	-6	0.05	1.7
Z-8	2500	-4	0.10	1.1
Z-9	2500	-2	0.03	1.5
Z-10	2500	0	0.07	1.9
Z-11	3000	-7	0.10	1.7
Z-12	3000	-6	0.03	1.1
Z-13	3000	-4	0.07	1.5
Z-14	3000	-2	0.12	1.9
Z-15	3000	0	0.05	1.3
Z-16	3500	-7	0.07	1.1
Z-17	3500	-6	0.12	1.5
Z-18	3500	-4	0.05	1.9
Z-19	3500	-2	0.10	1.3
Z-20	3500	0	0.03	1.7
Z-21	3800	-7	0.05	1.5
Z-22	3800	-6	0.10	1.9
Z-23	3800	-4	0.03	1.3
Z-24	3800	-2	0.07	1.7
Z-25	3800	0	0.12	1.1

Table 5. L₂₅ (5⁴) orthogonal test measurement results

View table

Table 5. L₂₅ (5⁴) orthogonal test measurement results

Experimental group	Kerf width /mm	Abnormal tissue zone width /μm	Slag hanging height /mm
Z-1	0.568	310.32	0.236
Z-2	Not cutting through
Z-3	Not cutting through
Z-4	Not cutting through
Z-5	Not cutting through
Z-6	Not cutting through
Z-7	0.326	343.35	1.869
Z-8	0.175	228.20	1.620
Z-9	0.390	533.98	1.254
Z-10	Not cutting through
Z-11	0.492	229.65	0.248
Z-12	0.429	428.94	0.988
Z-13	0.184	338.01	1.764
Z-14	0.561	330.59	0.405
Z-15	0.523	442.35	1.467
Z-16	0.499	437.42	1.555
Z-17	0.385	228.20	0.759
Z-18	0.306	416.67	1.288
Z-19	Not cutting through
Z-20	0.539	513.57	1.575
Z-21	0.565	333.01	1.992
Z-22	0.516	243.54	0.259
Z-23	0.233	490.63	2.374
Z-24	0.442	391.88	1.551
Z-25	Not cutting through

Table 6. Range analysis results of kerf width unit： mm
View table
Table 6. Range analysis results of kerf width unit： mm
Factor level A B C D
R₁ 0.2710 0.3065 0.0980 0.1201
1 0.5680 0.5310 0.4318 0.4878
2 0.2970 0.4140 0.4300 0.4498
3 0.4378 0.2245 0.3750 0.3810
4 0.4323 0.4643 0.3943 0.3780
5 0.4390 0.5310 0.4730 0.3677

Table 7. Range analysis results of abnormal tissue region width

View table

Table 7. Range analysis results of abnormal tissue region width

Factor level	A	B	C	D
R₂	88.6450	166.9525	221.6913	141.2100
1	310.3200	327.6000	455.4880	325.2800
2	368.5100	311.0075	383.8450	369.6125
3	353.9080	368.3775	389.1033	358.3000
4	398.9650	418.8167	233.7967	466.4900
5	364.7650	477.9600	279.3950	364.8533

Table 8. Range analysis results of slag hanging height unit： mm
View table
Table 8. Range analysis results of slag hanging height unit： mm
Factor level A B C D
R₃ 1.3450 0.7928 1.0720 1.3735
1 0.2360 1.0078 1.2854 0.5470
2 1.5810 0.9688 1.6540 1.3108
3 0.9744 1.7615 1.6233 1.4423
4 1.2943 1.0700 0.7090 1.9205
5 1.5440 1.5210 0.5820 1.3877

Table 9. Prediction functions of target response

View table

Table 9. Prediction functions of target response

Parameter	Prediction function
Kerf width	$\begin{array}{l} Y_{1} = 0.18 + 0.005899 A - 0.014 B + 0.005332 C + 0.015 D - 0.007834 A B + \\ 0.011 A D + 0.003349 B C + 0.015 B D + 0.0033453 C D + \\ 0.013 A^{2} + 0.037 B^{2} - 0.003210 D^{2} - 0.008117 A B^{2} \end{array}$
Abnormal tissue zone width	$\begin{array}{l} Y_{2} = 338.27 - 7.62 A + 32.45 B - 15.2 C + 32.35 D - 9.20 A B - 0.20 A C - \\ 12.18 A D - 4.81 B C + 7.98 B D + 1.52 C D + 3.25 A^{2} - 1.99 C^{2} + \\ 4.98 D^{2} - 2.20 C^{2} D + 0.22 C D^{2} \end{array}$
Slag hanging height	$\begin{array}{l} Y_{3} = 1.76 - 0.061 A + 0.12 B - 0.16 C + 0.058 D - 0.029 A B - 0.097 A C - \\ 0.11 A D + 0.022 B C - 0.003683 B D - 0.027 C D + 0.081 A^{2} - \\ 0.036 B^{2} - 0.032 D^{2} + 0.053 A^{2} C \end{array}$

Table 10. Error analysis of model
View table
Table 10. Error analysis of model
Target R² $R_{A d j}^{2}$ $R_{P r e d}^{2}$
Y₁ 0.9990 0.9946 0.9054
Y₂ 0.9999 0.9988 0.9359
Y₃ 0.9980 0.9929 0.9971

Table 11. Optimized process parameters and predicted values

View table

Table 11. Optimized process parameters and predicted values

Experiment No.

Laser

power /W

Defocusing

amount /mm

Cutting

speed /（m/s）

Gas pressure /

MPa

Kerf

width /mm

Abnormal tissue

zone width /μm

Slag hanging

height /mm

2563

-4

0.06

1.1

0.172

254.96

0.336

3091

-5

0.12

1.7

0.282

172.34

0.01

3060

-5

0.12

1.8

0.277

178.13

0.01

Table 12. Verification results of kerf width data

View table

Table 12. Verification results of kerf width data

Parameter	Kerf width /mm	Mean measured value /mm	Error value /mm	Mean error /mm
First test result in experiment 1	0.215	0.214	0.043	0.042
Second test result in experiment 1	0.217		0.045
Third test result in experiment 1	0.211		0.039
First test result in experiment 2	0.361	0.343	0.079	0.061
Second test result in experiment 2	0.322		0.040
Third test result in experiment 2	0.345		0.063
First test result in experiment 3	0.340	0.347	0.063	0.070
Second test result in experiment 3	0.350		0.073
Third test result in experiment 3	0.351		0.074

Table 13. Verification results of abnormal tissue region width data

View table

Table 13. Verification results of abnormal tissue region width data

Parameter	Width of abnormal tissue region /μm	Mean measured value /mm	Error value /μm	Mean error /mm
First test result in experiment 1	261.87	262.41	6.91	7.45
Second test result in experiment 1	257.86		2.87
Third test result in experiment 1	267.54		12.58
First test result in experiment 2	174.66	180.88	2.32	8.54
Second test result in experiment 2	179.58		7.24
Third test result in experiment 2	188.39		16.05
First test result in experiment 3	182.84	181.90	4.71	3.77
Second test result in experiment 3	183.40		5.27
Third test result in experiment 3	179.47		1.34

Table 14. Verification results of slag hanging height data

View table

Table 14. Verification results of slag hanging height data

Parameter	Slag hanging height /mm	Mean measured value /mm	Error value /mm	Mean error /mm
First test result in experiment 1	0.391	0.388	0.055	0.052
Second test result in experiment 1	0.403		0.067
Third test result in experiment 1	0.369		0.033
First test result in experiment 2	0.016	0.019	0.006	0.009
Second test result in experiment 2	0.017		0.007
Third test result in experiment 2	0.023		0.013
First test result in experiment 3	0.015	0.017	0.005	0.007
Second test result in experiment 3	0.014		0.004
Third test result in experiment 3	0.023		0.013

Tools

Get Citation

Copy Citation Text

Ya Zhang, Wentao Xu, Chunyu Wang, Xianfeng Zhang, Hua Qing, Dunming Tan, Shuai Wang. Research on Laser Cutting Process Optimization of 4 mm Thick TC4‐M Titanium Alloy[J]. Chinese Journal of Lasers, 2025, 52(8): 0802102

Download Citation

EndNote(RIS)BibTex Plain Text

Set citation alerts for article

Save article for my favorites